Official Report 302KB pdf
I ask members whether they agree to take items 5, 6 and 7 in private. The reason for that is that item 5 is a discussion of candidates for the position of budget process adviser and items 6 and 7 are draft reports.
I have been concerned over the past few weeks that papers are coming to us less than an hour before the start of the meeting. I received the stage 1 report on the Public Appointments (Parliamentary Approval) (Scotland) Bill by e-mail at 1.21 pm today. The draft report on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill arrived not much earlier than that. It is absolutely unacceptable that we are being asked to make decisions on reports that we have only just seen and that we have not had an opportunity to read. I propose that both items 6 and 7 be held over until next week to allow us to examine the draft reports fully.
I challenge the member's assertion on the frequency of late reports—the clerks to this committee are rarely late with reports. Something in particular held us up this week, and we will come to that when we discuss the reports. It is not the norm for committee draft reports to be late. I was aware that these reports would be late and that members would simply have to read them when they received them. That is what I had to do—I did not receive them any earlier.
I second Tricia Marwick. This is not the first time that we have received reports late. It may not have been two reports, but we have certainly received individual ones late. I left my office at 1.30, at which point I had not received either report by e-mail.
I do not think that we could fit in another meeting later this week. I suggest that, once we have cross-examined the minister—and you will all be aware that the minister is here to deal with two agenda items—we could adjourn to allow you to read the new document.
I want to suggest a compromise. As I have just raced here from Stirling, I have not seen the two reports either. However, I accept that we must deal with the draft stage 1 report on Alex Neil's Public Appointments (Parliamentary Approval) (Scotland) Bill today. As it will be difficult to arrange a second meeting later in the week, we could postpone our consideration of the other report until next week.
Sylvia Jackson has suggested that we deal with the one paper that we have to deal with because of time constraints and deal with the other one next week. Are we agreed to do that?
I want to make it clear that no one is attacking the clerks. However, as Keith Harding said, this is not the first time that this has happened. I left my office just after 1 o'clock and did not receive the papers. Perhaps some legislation is being pushed through far too quickly—
That is another question and is a matter for the Executive.
I am entitled to my say, convener. As you know, this committee has sometimes sat until 6 o'clock or later on a Tuesday. The lateness of the reports means that there is no way in which we can do them justice.
I want to clarify the situation for the record. On Thursday nights, the clerks give me a folder. Nine times out of 10—if not 9.9 times out of 10—everything that I need to know is in it. If you have not been getting reports until half an hour before you come to the meeting, I suggest that you should have raised that with me before, but you did not. You are telling me that that has happened not only this time, but on several occasions. I will take that up with you when the meeting is over.
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0. The proposal is agreed to. Do members further agree to take the items in private?